SunsetDreams

Profile Information

About Me

I live in deep red country, and like to see myself as a bright shining blue star in a sky full of red hues. It\'s not easy living in an area surrounded by Republicans, but I truly believe in my role of changing a heart and mind one person at a time. DU for me has became a safe haven, where I can come in gather knowledge and fellowship with Democrats, and be refueled to go out and fight yet another day.

Journal Archives

“Koch Brothers Exposed” chronicles the damage being done to individuals, communities and our democracy by two billionaires who are using their vast wealth to rewrite the rules of government to suit their ends. But the Koch brothers are a symbol of a greater problem of the power of money in politics—in particular, the ability of some über-rich people and large corporations to put their massive thumbs on the scale of democracy in ways that manipulate and ultimately overwhelm the will of the people.

...

Koch Brothers: Obstacles To Broad ProsperityCharles and David Koch, billionaire businessmen, are the founders of a group they call “Americans for Prosperity.” But what the group actually does is support extreme right-wing candidates who actively fight against the economic interests of workers and their families. The Koch brothers have been behind:

A $45 million effort to buy control of Congress. That’s the amount of money Forbes magazine says Americans for Prosperity spent in the 2010 elections. That money helped Republicans control the House with the most extreme group of conservatives elected in modern history. With this group firmly in control, every effort by the Obama administration to move legislation to revive the economy has been thwarted and previous successes in health care and financial reform have come under unrelenting attack. The stream of anti-regulation, anti-labor legislation passed by the Tea Party-besotted House is pretty much lifted straight from the Koch brothers legislative agenda.

The destructive efforts of the American Legislative Exchange Council to co-opt state and local governments. Rather than promoting state and local governments as entities that are particularly equipped to respond to the public interest because of their proximity to the people, ALEC mounts campaigns that leave state and local governments facilitating private greed rather than serving the public good. In August The Nation’s Lisa Graves explained that “of all the Kochs’ investments in right-wing organizations, ALEC provides some of the best returns: it gives the Kochs a way to make their brand of free-market fundamentalism legally binding.” Examples include legislation that allows energy companies to avoid fines for polluting, that push privatization of public education, and that prevent states and localities from regulating the rogue behavior of financial institutions.

No one should have that much influence over our Democracy that they circumvent the American people injecting their nasty greed fueled corrupt money into our elections and influence our representatives in creating the laws of this country.

Say no to the Koch Brothers!

They may be able to spend millions but the one thing they cannot buy is our vote.

No matter how long it takes, no matter how long the road....I will not rest...we will destroy the Koch influence and all those like them and get our Democracy back.

MATT TAIBBI: Oh, Bush, hands down. And this is an important point to make, because if you go back to the early 2000s, think about all these high-profile cases: Adelphia, Enron, Tyco, WorldCom, Arthur Andersen. All of these companies were swept up by the Bush Justice Department. And what’s interesting about this is that you can see a progression. If you go back to the savings and loan crisis in the late '80s, which was an enormous fraud problem, but it paled in comparison to the subprime mortgage crisis, we put about 800 people in jail during—in the aftermath of that crisis. You fast-forward 10 or 15 years to the accounting scandals, like Enron and Adelphia and Tyco, we went after the heads of some of those companies. It wasn't as vigorous as the S&L prosecutions, but we at least did it. At least George Bush recognized the symbolic importance of showing ordinary Americans that justice is blind, right?

I guess these just are not good enough or err um high profile or whatever. I guess Obama has been so easy on Corporate America

A government report released yesterday detailed how the U.S. economy is already benefiting from the law: by driving up personal income and consumer spending. Between Medicaid expanding to cover millions more low-income people, and families who bought private insurance on the exchange and took advantage of the law’s generous tax credits, the ACA contributed a $33.9 billion jump in personal income for January alone.

Think about that for a second — a $33.9 billion jump in personal income in the first month of the law’s full implementation.

The report also found a bigger than expected increase in consumer spending as well — about $45.2 billion total for the month. The Wall Street Journal looked at the report and said that about three-quarters of this surprisingly positive growth came from those benefiting from the ACA.

...

BOTTOM LINE: The Affordable Care Act is working, It is providing quality, affordable health coverage to millions of Americans and a boost to our economy. Even some red state Republicans are starting to see the light and understand the benefits of the law. With today’s 50th vote to repeal the law, Congressional Republicans made clear once again that they are quite simply living on another planet.

Republicans, lacking any real policies they can campaign on, have been relying on ads based upon lies about the Affordable Care Act. One ad which has received a lot of attention in the Michigan Senate race centered around a cancer patient who claimed her health insurance was unaffordable under Obamacare. Several fact-checkers found that her new policy through the Affordable Care Act was actually saving her at least $1200 per year. The Koch brothers have been funding a number of similarly dishonest ads through Americans for Prosperity. They may have been wasting their money. A new poll has Democrat Gary Peters with a narrow lead over Republican Terri Lynn Land despite a barrage of dishonest ads from Americans for Prosperity.

...

I’m not surprised. Take away the lies, and the right wing has no argument left. The old system was such as disaster, harming both millions of people and causing harm to the economy. The Republicans have no meaningful alternative. Claims made by the right wing are repeatedly being shown to be false, as with the ads from Americans for Prosperity.

The Republican concept of fairness is interesting. They consider increasing the number of uninsured and raising the cost of health insurance fair. They consider taking money out of people’s pockets fair. What Republicans call unfair is the notion that Americans deserve access to healthcare.

The SIMPLE Fairness Act is nothing more than another lamebrain gimmick that is designed to waste taxpayer money while House Republicans pretend that they have the ability to stop the ACA. Republicans understand that support for repealing Obamacare has hit an all time low, so they are trying to disguise their repeal attempts as fairness.

And a bombshell reportjust dropped this week showing that the Affordable Care Act is achieving yet another stated purpose: reducing health care costs while increasing coverage. As Gallup finds the rate of uninsured has fallen to its lowest since the financial crisis, data from Goldman Sachs shows that in January, the price of both health care and health insurance fell. While the drop in the health care costs were attributed largely to ACA's legally mandated small cuts to Medicare provider payments, the far more interesting part, to me, was the fact that health insurance prices also dropped - dropped, not increased at a smaller rate, but actually dropped.

Including the expected surge of signups this month as the open enrollment period comes to an end on March 31, Healthcare.gov sign-ups are poised to surprise a lot of people when it's all said and done. While coverage is central to the ACA though, controlling costs is not only one of its essential promises but also critical to the success of the coverage related provisions. That is why the January drop in health insurance rates and health care costs are so important to consider.

The idea that the Affordable Care Act would control health care costs was poo-pooed by both ends of political spectrum. The far Right disingenuously argued that imposing basic requirements that insurance companies cover maternity and mental health care would drive insurance companies to raise prices. The ideological Left, angry at the President for accepting a bill without their venerated public option, posited that without a government insurance option to keep private insurance companies in check, the death-by-spreadsheets industry would have no incentive to control costs themselves.

...

The Affordable Care Act has two premises and two purposes: to expand coverage and to rein in cost growth. The law has barely become fully effective, but it seems to already be succeeding in both (and succeeding rather wildly in reining in costs). In short: it is working exactly as it was intended to.

As we sprint to the finish to the March 31 open-enrollment period deadline in the health insurance marketplaces set up by the Affordable Care Act, national pundits are increasingly making the case that Obamacare is going to be a political liability for Democrats in November. As evidence, they point to the loss of Alex Sink in a Congressional special election in Florida, pronouncing that it was the ACA that sank Sink's ship.

Actual data, of course, points in the exact opposite direction, suggesting that the traction Sink got in a heavily Republican district in a low-turnout election was in part due to her opposition to Obamacare's repeal. If Obamacare is responsible for the results, then a more accurate reading would be that Obamacare closed an 11-point GOP registration gap to a 2-point voting gap on election day. That's the miracle here, and of course, the corpse of a national media isn't talking about it.

But how long they will be able to keep Obamacare's serious political advantage under wraps is in critical doubt. Last week, a Bloomberg poll showed that nearly two out of three Americans have a clear and convincing message for Washington on the issue of the Affordable Care Act: Keep your hands off my Obamacare. 64% of Americans don't just oppose a repeal of the ACA, they actually broadly support the law - in a poll that is heavily skewed to Republicans in its sampling (29-21 R-D gap, whereas most recent national registration data show a Democratic registration advantage of 4:3).

...

And there you have the coalition that elected Barack Obama twice, in two landslides: women, young people, minorities, and the middle and working classes. The Bloomberg poll should worry Republicans, not simply because it indicates that their days of demagoging Obamacare are limited, but because the emerging Obamacare coalition isn't all that different from the already dominant Obama coalition.

It looks as though the ACA is getting some good results and has been in the news lately. The more this happens, and it will...the louder the opposition to the ACA will become. Like I said...DESPERATION!

During an interview with Fox News’ Carl Cameron on Saturday, Paul Ryan tried to explain why he denied requesting stimulus funds for a local energy company in 2009 after voting against and demagoguing the Recovery Act. “My office sends tens of thousands of letters to various federal agencies. This went through what we call my case work system, where it was treated as a case work request for a constituent,” Ryan said. “It wasn’t my intention to send letters supporting the stimulus”:

...

But the letters — at least five in total — are all signed by Ryan in different ways, suggesting that he or an aide hand-signed the documents. “Recovery Act” is also prominently written in the very first line:

Paul Ryan is not the only Republican who publicly trashed the Stimulus as being bad for the economy but went back to their districts and begged for the money and said how good the stimulus would be for the economy. Republican double speak.

The latest House Republican budget plan asks low-income and middle-class Americans to shoulder the entire burden of deficit reduction while simultaneously delivering massive tax breaks to the richest 1 percent and preserving huge giveaways to Big Oil. It’s a recipe for repeating the mistakes of the Bush administration, during which middle-class incomes stagnated and only the privileged few enjoyed enormous gains.

Each component of the new House Republican budget threatens the middle class while doing nothing to add jobs or grow our economy. It ends the guarantee of decent insurance for senior citizens, breaking Medicare’s bedrock promise. It slashes investments in education, infrastructure, and basic research, all of which are key drivers of economic growth and mobility. And it cuts taxes for those at the top, asking the middle class to pick up the tab. It’s a budget designed to benefit the top 1 percent at everyone else’s expense.

The Republican majority in the U.S. House of Representatives released its proposed budget for fiscal year 2013 today, taking particular aim at our nation’s health care programs. This latest House Republican budget would fundamentally alter these programs, setting us on an uncharted path that would have adverse consequences for tens of millions of Americans.

Major consequences of the House Republican budget

Many seniors would be forced to pay sharply higher premiums to stay in traditional Medicare and keep their current choice of doctors.
New Medicare beneficiaries could pay more than $1,200 more by 2030 and more than $5,900 more by 2050.
More and more seniors would gradually shift to private health insurance plans over time, increasing the privatization of Medicare.
Hundreds of thousands of seniors would become uninsured.
Premiums would increase for most Medicare beneficiaries.
More than 47 million Americans would lose health insurance coverage in 10 years.
Tens of millions of Americans would lose consumer protections that are essential for health and economic security.
States would be forced to slash Medicaid eligibility, benefits, and payments to health care providers.

On March 29, 2012, the House of Representatives passed the 2013 budget plan proposed by Budget Committee chairman, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI). This plan makes dramatic changes to the Medicare program and to the entire federal budget.[3] As noted by Robert Greenstein, President of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), the Ryan Budget:

s Robin Hood in reverse — on steroids. It would likely produce the largest redistribution of income from the bottom to the top in modern U.S. history and likely increase poverty and inequality more than any other budget in recent times (and possibly in the nation's history).[4]

The Ryan budget would transform Medicare from a community of people guaranteed the same standard benefits into a voucher program in which each individual would be required to attempt to find adequate coverage. Beneficiaries would incur more out-of-pocket health care costs because the proposed vouchers will not be large enough to cover the rising costs of health care. In addition, the Ryan/Republican budget would also raise the Medicare eligibility age to 67, and likely lead to the demise of the traditional Medicare program by "making its pool of beneficiaries smaller, older, and sicker."[5]

What's at Stake

The following chart illustrates the devastating impact of repealing ACA and of implementing the Ryan/republican budget.[6]

The Medicare cuts, passed in the Affordable Care Act, come in the form of reimbursement reductions to hospitals, Medicaid prescription drugs and supplemental private insurance plans under Medicare Advantage. The Congressional Budget Office projects that they’ll extend the solvency of Medicare by eight years.

AARP, the seniors’ lobby and chief gatekeeper of Medicare benefits, endorsed the Affordable Care Act despite its cuts, arguing that they wouldn’t affect seniors’ access to care. The law expanded benefits by closing the prescription drug coverage gap known as the “doughnut hole.” The hospital and drug industries also endorsed the legislation, believing that the additional customers via the coverage expansion would more than make up for the cuts.

Obama’s long-term plan to save Medicare, approved under the Affordable Care Act, is to set up a panel of 15 Senate-confirmed experts tasked with issuing proposals to rein in the growth of spending if it exceeds a certain level. The Independent Payment Advisory Board, or IPAB, may only propose cuts to providers, not beneficiaries. Congress may replace the cuts by passing its own or with a three-fifths super-majority.

Here is what the ACA already did. What it DID NOT do is cut Medicare in anyway that would effect beneficiaries negatively, in fact quite the contrary.

The Affordable Care Act makes many changes to strengthen Medicare and provide stronger benefits to seniors, while slowing cost growth. As a result, average Medicare beneficiary savings in traditional Medicare will be approximately $3,500 over the next ten years. Beneficiaries who have high prescription drug spending will save much more – as much as $12,300 over the next 10 years. In comparison, Medicare beneficiaries with low drug costs will save an average of $2,400 over 10 years.

This report provides estimates of savings from the Affordable Care Act to seniors and people living with disabilities enrolled in traditional Medicare. The Affordable Care Act will favorably affect beneficiary expenditures in four ways. First, premiums for Part B physician and certain other services are expected to increase at a slower rate than would have occurred without the Affordable Care Act, resulting in lower Part B premiums over time. Second, beneficiary copayments and coinsurance under Part A and B will increase more slowly because the Affordable Care Act slows the rate of growth in payments to hospitals and other providers. Third, closing the Medicare prescription drug coverage gap, often called the “donut hole,” will lower costs for beneficiaries who otherwise would have been required to spend thousands of dollars out of their own pocket for their prescription drugs. Finally, the Affordable Care Act will provide many preventive services to seniors at no additional cost.

The Affordable Care Act will save approximately $500 billion over the next ten years through reduction in extra subsidies paid to Medicare Advantage plans, reductions in the rate of growth in provider payments, and efforts to make the Medicare program more efficient and to reduce waste, fraud and abuse. These reductions will lead to corresponding savings for beneficiaries through lower copayments and premiums. A slower rate of growth in Medicare is expected to result in a slower rate of growth in beneficiary out-of-pocket payments, and a slower rate of growth in Part B premiums. In addition, the closing of the donut hole will result in large savings for beneficiaries with high levels of prescription drug spending.

Total savings per traditional Medicare beneficiary are estimated to be $86 in 2011, rising to $649 in 2020 (see Table 1). For a beneficiary with spending in the donut hole, estimated savings increase from $553 in 2011 to $2,217 in 2020.

Health Care Fraud Prevention and Enforcement Action Team (HEAT)
In May 2009, DOJ and HHS announced the creation of the Health Care Fraud Prevention and Enforcement Action Team (HEAT). With the creation of the new HEAT team the fight against Medicare fraud has become a Cabinet-level priority.

Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and Attorney General Eric Holder pledge to continue fighting waste, fraud and abuse. As of today, DOJ and HHS continue to make progress and succeed in the fight against Medicare fraud.

3. Ryan wants to end Medicare, replace it with a voucher system. Ryan’s latest budget transforms the existing version of Medicare, in which government provides seniors with a guaranteed benefit, into a “premium support” system. All future retirees would receive a government contribution to purchase insurance from an exchange of private plans or traditional fee-for-service Medicare. But since the premium support voucher does not keep up with increasing health care costs, the Congressional Budget Offices estimates that new beneficiaries could pay up to $1,200 more by 2030 and more than $5,900 more by 2050. A recent study also found that had the plan been implemented in 2009, 24 million beneficiares enrolled in the program would have paid higher premiums to maintain their choice of plan and doctors. Ryan would also raise Medicare’s age of eligibility to 67.

4. Ryan thinks Social Security is a “ponzi scheme.” In September of 2011, Ryan agreed with Rick Perry’s characterization of Social Security as a “Ponzi scheme” and since 2005 has advocated for privatizing the retirement benefit and investing it in stocks and bonds. Conservatives claim that this would “outperform the current formula based on wages earned and overall wage appreciation,” but the economic crisis of 2008 should serve as a wake-up call for policymakers who seek to hinge Americans’ retirement on the stock market. In fact, “a person with a private Social Security account similar to what President George W. Bush proposed in 2005″ would have lost much of their retirement savings.

The new bosses billed the meeting in late January 2011 as their ‘welcome’ to the 200 workers at a long-established factory in Freeport, Ill. Maybe the description reflected some dark corporate humor lost on the workers, but just three minutes into their welcome, the new managers from Sensata announced that all the jobs in the factory—which produces finely calibrated sensors for the automobile and other industries—would be moved to China or another country by 2013.

Sensata is the creation of Bain Capital, a private equity fund co-founded in 1984 by Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney. Sensata was assembled from various sensor manufacturers in 2006, and it has continued its acquisitions even as the U.S. share of its workforce declines sharply. Bain’s strategy for this basically healthy, moderately high-tech manufacturing sector of the U.S. economy is apparently to transfer all the work offshore.

The Illinois plant was previously owned by Honeywell. Tom Gaulrapp, who has worked there for 33 years, at first refused to believe that Sensata would move the highly automated and profitable operations from Freeport, where skilled employees had developed many of the products and machinery. Then he learned more about Bain and grew angry.
“Isn’t my job worth more than another dollar in a millionaire’s pocket?” he asks. “It’s our American dream they’re throwing overboard. We don’t have problems with them wanting to make a dollar, but when is enough enough? These companies have to have some responsibility to the communities in which they’re located.”

No, they don’t—or at least, not in the world of private equity funds from which Romney hails. Despite Romney’s claim to be a job creator (the honorary title Republicans bestow on all rich people), that world is one where the extra dollar in a millionaire’s pocket is always worth more than someone’s job.

Anger grows in Illinois at Bain's latest outsourcing plan; profitable factory to be sent to China

So as Sensata strips out costs by sacking American workers in favour of Chinese ones, the value of Romney's own investments could rise, putting money into the pockets of a Republican challenger who has placed job creation in America at the heart of his bid for the White House.

...

The anger towards Bain and Romney is palpable. Romney has become the target for the emotions of a community who built lives based on the idea of a steady manufacturing job: a concept out of place in the sort of fluid buy-and-sell world from which Bain prospers. "I didn't have a clue what Bain was before this happened," said Cheryl Randecker, 52. "Now when I hear Romney speak it makes me sick to my stomach."

President Barack Obama's campaign has sought to make Bain's record of buying and selling companies – often involving job losses – a key part of its strategy of painting Romney as an out-of-touch super-rich financier. In turn, Romney, who left Bain in 1999, has defended his long career there, saying Bain ends up generating economic growth and spurring job creation. Far from profiting from layoffs, Romney has portrayed Bain as a model for the American future.

That argument stuns Illinois governor Pat Quinn. "If he thinks that is the model for American economic growth then he is barking up the wrong tree," Quinn told The Guardian.

Sensata employees Protested Boehner and Schilling at an Aug. 10 fund-raiser at Forest Hills Country Club

Protesters will call out the two legislators for blocking the Bring Jobs Home Act, which would help prevent family-supporting American jobs — like those at Sensata — from being shipped overseas.

Sensata workers gathered more than 1,000 signatures on a petition addressed to Schilling in support of the Bring Jobs Home Act, and delivered them to Schilling in early July.

Despite overwhelming support for the bill among his constituents, Schilling voted against the measure — which would end tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas — when it came to a vote later that month.

It's not just a Romney/Bain mindset, it is a GOP mindset. They pretend to care about our jobs, but would sell our jobs to the highest bidder to turn a profit. It's all about lining their pockets!

I've heard some argue on the right that Romney isn't responsible for what happened after he retroactively retired from Bain in 2002..that is not a very good argument. In fact it is BS! Romney created the business model for Bain, and he still profits from their business dealings. Romney was CEO when jobs and plants were destroyed, and he is still profiting from American workers misery. All for the all mighty dollar. Sensata is just one company this has happened to..look at the Bain/Romney record.

In other words: A Presidential Candidate running for the Highest office in the land profits on sending American Jobs overseas!!! Your jobs...it could be you next.

The Medicare cuts, passed in the Affordable Care Act, come in the form of reimbursement reductions to hospitals, Medicaid prescription drugs and supplemental private insurance plans under Medicare Advantage. The Congressional Budget Office projects that they’ll extend the solvency of Medicare by eight years.

AARP, the seniors’ lobby and chief gatekeeper of Medicare benefits, endorsed the Affordable Care Act despite its cuts, arguing that they wouldn’t affect seniors’ access to care. The law expanded benefits by closing the prescription drug coverage gap known as the “doughnut hole.” The hospital and drug industries also endorsed the legislation, believing that the additional customers via the coverage expansion would more than make up for the cuts.

Obama’s long-term plan to save Medicare, approved under the Affordable Care Act, is to set up a panel of 15 Senate-confirmed experts tasked with issuing proposals to rein in the growth of spending if it exceeds a certain level. The Independent Payment Advisory Board, or IPAB, may only propose cuts to providers, not beneficiaries. Congress may replace the cuts by passing its own or with a three-fifths super-majority.

Here is what the ACA already did. What it DID NOT do is cut Medicare in anyway that would effect beneficiaries negatively, in fact quite the contrary.

The Affordable Care Act makes many changes to strengthen Medicare and provide stronger benefits to seniors, while slowing cost growth. As a result, average Medicare beneficiary savings in traditional Medicare will be approximately $3,500 over the next ten years. Beneficiaries who have high prescription drug spending will save much more – as much as $12,300 over the next 10 years. In comparison, Medicare beneficiaries with low drug costs will save an average of $2,400 over 10 years.

This report provides estimates of savings from the Affordable Care Act to seniors and people living with disabilities enrolled in traditional Medicare. The Affordable Care Act will favorably affect beneficiary expenditures in four ways. First, premiums for Part B physician and certain other services are expected to increase at a slower rate than would have occurred without the Affordable Care Act, resulting in lower Part B premiums over time. Second, beneficiary copayments and coinsurance under Part A and B will increase more slowly because the Affordable Care Act slows the rate of growth in payments to hospitals and other providers. Third, closing the Medicare prescription drug coverage gap, often called the “donut hole,” will lower costs for beneficiaries who otherwise would have been required to spend thousands of dollars out of their own pocket for their prescription drugs. Finally, the Affordable Care Act will provide many preventive services to seniors at no additional cost.

The Affordable Care Act will save approximately $500 billion over the next ten years through reduction in extra subsidies paid to Medicare Advantage plans, reductions in the rate of growth in provider payments, and efforts to make the Medicare program more efficient and to reduce waste, fraud and abuse. These reductions will lead to corresponding savings for beneficiaries through lower copayments and premiums. A slower rate of growth in Medicare is expected to result in a slower rate of growth in beneficiary out-of-pocket payments, and a slower rate of growth in Part B premiums. In addition, the closing of the donut hole will result in large savings for beneficiaries with high levels of prescription drug spending.

Total savings per traditional Medicare beneficiary are estimated to be $86 in 2011, rising to $649 in 2020 (see Table 1). For a beneficiary with spending in the donut hole, estimated savings increase from $553 in 2011 to $2,217 in 2020.

Health Care Fraud Prevention and Enforcement Action Team (HEAT)
In May 2009, DOJ and HHS announced the creation of the Health Care Fraud Prevention and Enforcement Action Team (HEAT). With the creation of the new HEAT team the fight against Medicare fraud has become a Cabinet-level priority.

Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and Attorney General Eric Holder pledge to continue fighting waste, fraud and abuse. As of today, DOJ and HHS continue to make progress and succeed in the fight against Medicare fraud.

3. Ryan wants to end Medicare, replace it with a voucher system. Ryan’s latest budget transforms the existing version of Medicare, in which government provides seniors with a guaranteed benefit, into a “premium support” system. All future retirees would receive a government contribution to purchase insurance from an exchange of private plans or traditional fee-for-service Medicare. But since the premium support voucher does not keep up with increasing health care costs, the Congressional Budget Offices estimates that new beneficiaries could pay up to $1,200 more by 2030 and more than $5,900 more by 2050. A recent study also found that had the plan been implemented in 2009, 24 million beneficiares enrolled in the program would have paid higher premiums to maintain their choice of plan and doctors. Ryan would also raise Medicare’s age of eligibility to 67.

4. Ryan thinks Social Security is a “ponzi scheme.” In September of 2011, Ryan agreed with Rick Perry’s characterization of Social Security as a “Ponzi scheme” and since 2005 has advocated for privatizing the retirement benefit and investing it in stocks and bonds. Conservatives claim that this would “outperform the current formula based on wages earned and overall wage appreciation,” but the economic crisis of 2008 should serve as a wake-up call for policymakers who seek to hinge Americans’ retirement on the stock market. In fact, “a person with a private Social Security account similar to what President George W. Bush proposed in 2005″ would have lost much of their retirement savings.

The Medicare cuts, passed in the Affordable Care Act, come in the form of reimbursement reductions to hospitals, Medicaid prescription drugs and supplemental private insurance plans under Medicare Advantage. The Congressional Budget Office projects that they’ll extend the solvency of Medicare by eight years.

AARP, the seniors’ lobby and chief gatekeeper of Medicare benefits, endorsed the Affordable Care Act despite its cuts, arguing that they wouldn’t affect seniors’ access to care. The law expanded benefits by closing the prescription drug coverage gap known as the “doughnut hole.” The hospital and drug industries also endorsed the legislation, believing that the additional customers via the coverage expansion would more than make up for the cuts.

Obama’s long-term plan to save Medicare, approved under the Affordable Care Act, is to set up a panel of 15 Senate-confirmed experts tasked with issuing proposals to rein in the growth of spending if it exceeds a certain level. The Independent Payment Advisory Board, or IPAB, may only propose cuts to providers, not beneficiaries. Congress may replace the cuts by passing its own or with a three-fifths super-majority.

The media have portrayed Rep. Paul Ryan as a courageous reformer who is offering serious solutions to fix the country's finances. In reality, Ryan is an ideologue who offers fraudulent proposals that would hurt low and middle income Americans and put the social safety net in jeopardy. Media Matters looks at what the media should know about Paul Ryan and his policies.

Economist William Gale: "Low- And Middle-Class Households Bear The Entire Burden Of Closing The Fiscal Gap" Under Ryan's Budget Plan. Tax Policy Center co-director William Gale, who served as a senior staff economist for the Council of Economic Advisers under President George H.W. Bush, wrote that Ryan's fiscal year 2013 budget plan is "essentially, an effort to have low- and middle-class households bear the entire burden of closing the fiscal gap and bear the costs of financing an additional tax cut for high income households." He added...

Tax Policy Center: Those Making More Than $1 Million Would Receive An Average Tax Cut Of $265,000 In Addition To Their Benefits From The Bush Tax Cuts. From a Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) analysis of the Ryan plan...

This idea that you ROB from the Poor and the Middle Class and give more to the RICH has not worked in this country. When are people going to wake up to the Right's scheme on this country? They don't care about you, they only want to make their buddies Richer, and the Corporations that they support and support them safer. Safer from regulations that help protect you from being scammed by these big corporations. They could care one iota about any of us, as long as they get theirs.

1. Ryan embraces the extreme philosophy of Ayn Rand. Ryan heaped praise on Ayn Rand, a 20th-century libertarian novelist best known for her philosophy that centered on the idea that selfishness is “virtue.” Rand described altruism as “evil,” condemned Christianity for advocating compassion for the poor, viewed the feminist movement as “phony,” and called Arabs “almost totally primitive savages. Though he publicly rejected “her philosophy” in 2012, Ryan had professed himself a strong devotee. “The reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Ayn Rand,” he said at a D.C. gathering honoring the author of “Atlas Shrugged” and “The Fountainhead.” “I give out ‘Atlas Shrugged’ as Christmas presents, and I make all my interns read it. Well… I try to make my interns read it.”

2. Ryan wants to raises taxes on the middle class, cut them for millionaires. Paul Ryan’s infamous budget — which Romney embraced — replaces “the current tax structure with two brackets — 25 percent and 10 percent — and cut the top rate from 35 percent.” Federal tax collections would fall “by about $4.5 trillion over the next decade” as a result and to avoid increasing the national debt, the budget proposes massive cuts in social programs and “special-interest loopholes and tax shelters that litter the code.” But 62 percent of the savings would come from programs that benefit the lower- and middle-classes, who would also experience a tax increase. That’s because while Ryan “would extend the Bush tax cuts, which are due to expire at the end of this year, he would not extend President Obama’s tax cuts for those with the lowest incomes, which will expire at the same time.” Households “earning more than $1 million a year, meanwhile, could see a net tax cut of about $300,000 annually.”

Audiences have booed Ryan for the unfair distribution:

3. Ryan wants to end Medicare, replace it with a voucher system. Ryan’s latest budget transforms the existing version of Medicare, in which government provides seniors with a guaranteed benefit, into a “premium support” system. All future retirees would receive a government contribution to purchase insurance from an exchange of private plans or traditional fee-for-service Medicare. But since the premium support voucher does not keep up with increasing health care costs, the Congressional Budget Offices estimates that new beneficiaries could pay up to $1,200 more by 2030 and more than $5,900 more by 2050. A recent study also found that had the plan been implemented in 2009, 24 million beneficiares enrolled in the program would have paid higher premiums to maintain their choice of plan and doctors. Ryan would also raise Medicare’s age of eligibility to 67.

4. Ryan thinks Social Security is a “ponzi scheme.” In September of 2011, Ryan agreed with Rick Perry’s characterization of Social Security as a “Ponzi scheme” and since 2005 has advocated for privatizing the retirement benefit and investing it in stocks and bonds. Conservatives claim that this would “outperform the current formula based on wages earned and overall wage appreciation,” but the economic crisis of 2008 should serve as a wake-up call for policymakers who seek to hinge Americans’ retirement on the stock market. In fact, “a person with a private Social Security account similar to what President George W. Bush proposed in 2005″ would have lost much of their retirement savings.

I could do this in detail, but you can learn everything you need to know by understanding two numbers: $4.6 trillion and 14 million.

Of these, $4.6 trillion is the size of the mystery meat in the budget. Ryan proposes tax cuts that would cost $4.6 trillion over the next decade relative to current policy — that is, relative even to making the Bush tax cuts permanent — but claims that his plan is revenue neutral, because he would make up the revenue loss by closing loopholes. For example, he would … well, actually, he refuses to name a single example of a loophole he wants to close.

So the budget is a fraud. No, it’s not “imperfect”, it’s not a bit shaky on the numbers; it’s completely based on almost $5 trillion dollars of alleged revenue that are pure fabrication.

...

On the other side, 14 million is the minimum number of people who would lose health insurance due to Medicaid cuts — the Urban Institute, working off the very similar plan Ryan unveiled last year, puts it at between 14 and 27 million people losing Medicaid.

Objective, Third-Party Analysis Showed Governor Perry’s Plan Would Raise Taxes On Millions Of American Families – But He Doesn’t Seem Interested In The Discussion.

Don't let Romney fool you that he will be the one making all the decisions and policies and that they will somehow be different. Their policies are the same. Romney has backed Paul Ryan's budget even when that budget was slammed for being the disaster it is.